After launching Operation Epic Fury last month, Donald Trump has been urging allies to support the United States and Israel in a widening conflict with Iran. The campaign began with large-scale airstrikes that reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump has insisted the war is progressing rapidly and successfully, claiming that American forces are ahead of schedule and have inflicted more damage than initially expected. He even suggested there was “practically nothing left to target,” portraying the operation as nearing completion despite ongoing instability across the region.
Despite that optimism, Trump has struggled to rally meaningful international backing. Many traditional allies have responded cautiously or outright declined involvement, emphasizing diplomacy, legal constraints, or strategic uncertainty. The gap between Washington’s expectations and allied responses has become increasingly visible, highlighting broader concerns about escalation and the risks of a prolonged regional war. While the United States continues to frame the campaign as necessary and effective, other governments are signaling hesitation, preferring restraint over deeper military engagement in a volatile geopolitical environment.
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has resisted calls for direct participation. Stressing the importance of international law and careful planning, he made clear that British troops would not be deployed without a defined legal basis and a comprehensive strategy. Starmer instead advocated for de-escalation and negotiation, arguing that restoring stability—particularly oil flows through the Gulf—would be better achieved through diplomacy. His remarks also clarified that this conflict would not be treated as a NATO mission, underscoring limits to collective military involvement.
Elsewhere in Europe, Italy and Germany have taken similarly firm positions against joining the conflict. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani emphasized that diplomacy must take precedence and ruled out extending existing defensive naval operations. Meanwhile, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz delivered one of the strongest rejections, stating clearly that Germany would not participate militarily. Although he criticized Iran’s leadership, he argued that bombing was not an appropriate solution. Greece also confirmed it would not engage in operations in the Strait of Hormuz, reflecting a broader European reluctance.
Other European nations—including Netherlands, Estonia, and Lithuania—have stopped short of outright rejection but remain hesitant, seeking clarity on long-term strategy. Denmark has taken a more nuanced stance, suggesting that while it is important to remain open-minded, any potential contribution should focus on de-escalation rather than intensifying the conflict. This cautious positioning reflects uncertainty about both the objectives and consequences of the campaign, as well as concerns about being drawn into a broader confrontation.
Beyond Europe, key allies in the Asia-Pacific region have also declined to commit militarily. Australia has ruled out sending naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz, while Japan has stated that no decision has been made regarding escort missions, emphasizing legal and strategic considerations. South Korea has remained noncommittal, indicating ongoing discussions with the United States but no firm pledge of support. Collectively, these responses illustrate a pattern of caution among U.S. allies, many of whom appear unwilling to escalate their involvement in a conflict with uncertain outcomes.
